Transcript USING INFORMATION FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE National Trends and Examples of Using Local Data Presented at the IMLS State Data Coordinator Conference December 4, 2008 Kathryn Pettit, The.

USING INFORMATION FOR
COMMUNITY CHANGE
National Trends and
Examples of Using Local Data
Presented at the
IMLS State Data Coordinator Conference
December 4, 2008
Kathryn Pettit, The Urban Institute
National Trends in Using Local Indicators

More neighborhood level data available than ever before
– Online property data
– No Child Left Behind reporting requirements

Increased role for local administrative data
– Decennial Census now eight years out of date
– American Community Survey tract data not out until 2010

Advances in usability and functionality of technology

Wider understanding of benefits from tailoring
programs & policies to local conditions
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
National Trends in Using Local Indicators

But, still often difficult to find relevant, up-to-date
data at the desired geography for community action

And more than data is needed
– Knowledge and respect of the community
– Committed institutions
– Strong partnerships among organizations
– Effective communication & advocacy
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
National Neighborhood
Indicators Partnership (NNIP)

Collaborative effort since 1995
– Urban Institute and local partners in 31 U.S. cities

Partners operate information systems
– Recurrently updated neighborhood data
– Multiple topics and data sources

Success required three innovations
1. Data and technology
2. Institutions
3. Using information for change
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
National Neighborhood Indicators Partners
Atlanta
Baltimore
Boston
Camden
Chattanooga
Chicago
Cleveland
Columbus
Dallas
Denver
Des Moines
Grand Rapids
Hartford
Indianapolis
Louisville
Los Angeles
Memphis
Miami
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
Nashville
New Haven
New Orleans
New York City
Oakland
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Providence
Sacramento
Seattle
Washington, DC
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
Data and Technology
Linking people information with place information
NEIGHBORHOOD
TRACTS
CITY
 Problems are not
evenly distributed
across cities.
 Priority issues vary
across neighborhoods.
PARCEL
BLOCK GROUPS
 People can relate to
data analysis at the
neighborhood level.
BLOCKS
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
NNIP Partners
Data from Many Sources
Neighborhood level –
social/economic/physical







Employment
Births, deaths
Crimes
TANF, Food Stamps
Child care
Health
Schools
Parcel level –
physical/economic







Property sales, prices
Property ownership
Code violations
Assessed values
Tax arrears
Vacant/abandoned
City/CDC plans
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
New Types of Institutions

Mostly outside of government
– Stand-alone nonprofit, university centers, alliance

But partner with resident groups, nonprofits,
government, and other stakeholders

Long-term and multifaceted interests

Positioned to maintain trust of data providers
and users
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
Shared Mission: Information for Change

Democratizing Information
– Facilitate the direct use of data by stakeholders

Work for many clients
– Technical assistance to nonprofits
– Informing city’s service provision
– Market analysis for local retail

But a central focus on strengthening,
empowering low-income neighborhoods

Information as a bridge for collaboration among
public agencies, nonprofits, businesses
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
Joint Work Program of the NNIP Partnership

Advance the state of practice
1. Informing local policy initiatives (cross-site projects)
2. Developing tools and guides

Build/strengthen local capacity
3. Developing capacity in new communities
4. Services to an expanding network

Influence national context/partnering
5. Leadership in building the field
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
Using Information for Change:
Stories from Other Cities

Improving literacy programs (Chattanooga)

Supporting public library planning (Milwaukee)

Residential instability and children’s well-being
(Providence)
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
Chattanooga
Improving Literacy Programs
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
Reading in Hamilton County, TN
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
Reading in Hamilton County: Drilldown
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
Milwaukee
Supporting Public Library
Facilities and Program Planning
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
COMMUNITY PATTERNS AND TRENDS
IMPORTANT TO PUBLIC LIBRARY PLANNING
A. Population Trends
B. Race and Ethnicity Patterns
C. Challenges in Milwaukee Neighborhoods
D. Community Assets
E. Library Use Patterns
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
ANALYZING LIBRARY USE
Summary of Users by Library
• Distribution of Active Card Holders
• Current Circulation - Items Checked Out in July, 2007
Market Reach for Branches
• Distance matters! Libraries serve 75% of card holders
within 2.5 miles.
• Three libraries have very close service patterns, another
three branch libraries have wider service patterns
Mapping Library Use Patterns
• Concentrations of Card Holders
• Average Rate of Use by Age Group
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
Percent of
population with
library cards
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
KEY FINDINGS
A. How will population patterns change?
B. What challenges that neighborhoods face affect
library programming?
C. Where are the gaps in library coverage?
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
Communication of findings through Internet
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
Providence
Residential Instability and
Children’s Well-being
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
Providence public student population
increasingly diverse
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
High rate of churning among students
Problem concentrated in certain neighborhoods
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
Students in mobile households
have lower test scores
Percent of students meeting testing standards
70%
66%
Reading
59%
Percent Meeting the Standard
60%
Math/Problem Solving
56%
48%
50%
40%
30%
20%
7%
10%
5%
4%
2%
0%
0
1
2
Number of Residential Moves
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
3 or more
Risk factors can identify families more likely
to face residential instability
40%
Prenatal care by mobility status
35%
30%
Mobile children
Non-mobile children
27%
25%
20%
15%
15%
15%
10%
6%
5%
0%
Delayed Care
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
Insufficient Care
How Libraries Can Use
Neighborhood Level Data

Analyze data for internal planning
– Both library data and other data that describes the
community and trends

Share library usage patterns for program improvement
and advocacy
– Early Childhood Development, Adult Literacy, English as a
Foreign Language Programs

Serve as a resource for public on neighborhood level
data in your area
– Become familiar with nationally available systems
ex: www.policymap.org, beta.dataplace.org,
– Host training sessions
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
For more information
Web site: www.urban.org/nnip
Email: [email protected]
Mailing address:
Kathy Pettit
National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
c/o The Urban Institute
2100 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
The Urban Institute / National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership